Hello Michael, By all means this MIB extension is useful and I do support it's adoption.
I was only suggesting to perhaps wait just a bit and adopt something which we do already know will be needed in this MIB to avoid next rev just few days after the adoption and save authors of this MIB another submission cycle :) But You, Bert and Randy are so ready and open to continue enhancing it I see no show-stopper.
Once I will see new rev (regardless if this is WG item already or not yet) I will take a look again and provide my comments (if any are needed then :).
Many thx, R.
On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 23:39:20 -0700, Robert Raszuk<[email protected]> said:Robert> Hi Bert, Robert> Many thx for your comment .. I was not able to stay at the IETF till Robert> the SIDR session. Robert> If that is the case the draft-ymbk-bgp-origin-validation-mib is just Robert> completely not ready for adoption until it contains bare minimum which Robert> will allow operators to use it. Robert> It would be insane to list 1 million of valid prefixes as opposed to Robert> little fraction of them being in question. Whoever authored that draft Robert> needs to develop a bit more real network operational experience :) Hi Robert, I am co-editing the MIB and was the person that originally put most of the MIB into SMI form. Major flaws in the original MIB design are going to be mostly due to me. My SNMP background is much greater than my routing knowledge, and I'm sure it shows (not shockingly, no network operator experience). I expected and hoped to get feedback on what was wrong with the MIB and how it could be improved. I do look at WG at adoption criteria differently. I can see your point of view. But I generally look on adoption as whether a document/MIB is useful, and appropriate for a particular WG and not whether the first version of the doc/MIB is ready, with just minor adjustment, to be coded and used. But regardless of WG adoption, I am curious whether you think these MIBs would be useful to have, not in the current state, but in a closer to ideal state? And please give as much feedback as you can, Thanks, Mike Robert> Best regards, Robert> R. >> During the discussion at the SIDR WG session at IETF81 we >> found that the bgpVRTValid attribute in that table makes no >> sense, because we do not have that info. These are ALL >> validated ROAs (or better validated prefixes) as I understand >> it. >> >> Bert >> On 8/5/11 8:09 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Just looking at draft-ymbk-bgp-origin-validation-mib may I ask what >>> would be the root OID string to start SNMP tree walk (or set the trap) >>> to list all INVALID or NOT_FOUND BGP entries ? >>> >>> Rgs, >>> R. Robert> _______________________________________________ Robert> sidr mailing list Robert> [email protected] Robert> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
